Posted - 08/23/2007 : 09:17:05 Alrite this is a hypothetical question. Wayne Gretzky and Sidney Crosby are both eligible to be drafted in the 1979 entry draft. That means they'll play in the scoring frenzy of the 80's. Your team has the 1st overall pick in the draft. The two have the same points of what they did in there Junior years. So who do you pick, Wayne Gretzky or Sidney Crosby?

Let the Debates Begin!!!!!!!!!

40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

brentrock2

Posted - 09/24/2009 : 12:43:42 Not much thought into this one but I would pick Gretzky.

HABS RULE!!brentrock2

slozo

Posted - 09/24/2009 : 04:55:40Unless Crosby used to be called Super Mario back in the 90's, this topic has gone off the rails.

This is the Gretzky and CROSBY thread, where inventive young minds who never saw Gretzky play (and who may even be young enough to never have seen Lemieux play at his peak) can postulate about making some gossamer thin connections between arguably the greatest player of all time, and one of the top three players in the game today, who just happens to be the only Canadian in that group.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

shazariahl

Posted - 09/23/2009 : 23:35:41 Andy -

Not to be contentious, because I didn't mean those Penguin teams were the exact equal of the Oilers (though some may actually think they were as good or better). What I meant was, they were at least comparable. I agree that Lemieux didn't have the team early in his career, and still put up amazing numbers. I'm not trying to take anything away from Lemieux, who is certainly one of the greatest players to ever live. If he'd been healthy, who knows.

But, like others have said before me, when it comes down to a choice between:1. Player A who has more goals, assists, and points both in his peak seasons and per game during those seasons and plays more games during those years, plus breaks nearly every offensive record imaginable while dominating the league (as judged by Harts and Art Ross trophies) for a decade, plus goes on to give me some pretty good years even at the end of his career when his prime is done

vs

2. Player B who looks better on ice, puts up nearly as many points in his peak seasons and per game during those seasons, but plays less games due to injury, plays far less games, has a shorter peak in number of seasons even during his prime, and misses several years due to disease (totally not his fault, but still a definite negative)

I have to pick player A. Even if Lemieux was slightly ahead in PPG or had slightly better seasons, but Gretzky was healthier and more consistant, it would be hard for me to pick Lemieux. But the fact that Gretzky was more productive AND healthier just seems too much to overlook. Others can judge things differently; that is their right. But I honestly believe that by nearly any form of rational comparison, Gretzky was better.

Now some might say the players who won the last cup for Edmonton might have had the best all around team if you took Gretzky/Lemieux out of the group and that I would agree with.

andyhack

Posted - 09/05/2009 : 08:16:44 Haven't been here for a while, but the line below caught my eye.

"by the time he (Mario) started winning cups, he had a team as good as anything the Oilers had ever put on ice"

In two words,

I DISAGREE!

Mario had a very good supporting cast in his Cup years, yes, but, take Wayne and Mario off those teams, and I think if the remaining guys play a series the Oilers take it either 4-1 or 4-2.

Some reasons that come to my mind right of the bat:

- Coffey was younger sharper, faster in his Oilers years compared to his Penguin years - significantly so in my opinion- Team Speed of Oiler forwards (i.e. Anderson, Kurri) would provide a marked edge in that department- The Messier factor - yes, Jagr was a 5 time scoring champ and obviously a great great player, but, if we are talking 80s Messier vs. early 90s Jagr, I'll take Messier - to really truly understand how good the Oiler teams of the 80s were requires a good understanding of just how much of a force Messier was at the time, not in terms of offensive production, but in terms of wear and tear on the opposing team - face him in those days and then in the next shift face Wayne? Tough, tough stuff.- Last but not least, is the irrefutable fact that the remaining cast of the Oilers PRODUCED A CUP WITHOUT WAYNE GRETZKY - now that is INDEED a good supporting cast!

None of this is meant to get into the Wayne-Mario debate that apparently sparked the comment above. I just wanted to throw out my thoughts on that one sentence. I believe it is simply false.

shazariahl

Posted - 09/04/2009 : 12:04:58

quote:Originally posted by Guest4449

I guarantee you that if it had been mario with edm in the early 80's and was pain and injury free you would have seen numbers put up that would have been so rediculous there would never be another play that would ever have a shot at the records that man would set.

So... basically exactly what Gretzky did? I mean seriously, no one will ever beat 215 pts in a season, 51 game scoring streak from start of season, 50 career hat tricks, 2800 career points, 1950 career assists, 163 (!!!!!!) assists in a season, 92 goals in a season, 50 goals in 39 games, etc. Not to be contentous, but you're saying that IF Mario had played for the Oilers, his records would have been unbeatable. But he didn't. Gretzky did, and the records he set are unbeatable. Maybe you think Mario's would be more unbeatable, but that's just conjecture, and its something I disagree with. I mean, some of Wayne's greatest records are his career ones, which was equal parts health/longevity and skill. Mario was missing half that formula. Its not like playing in Edmonton would have spared him from cancer or back injuries, so his career would still have been cut short. At best he could have maybe hoped to beat some of the single season records, but even then he's usually behind Gretzky's 2nd or 3rd best seasons, not just his best.

What I mean is, Mario had 85 goals in a season, but Gretzky had 87 and 92. Mario is 3rd (and tied for 3rd at that). Mario had 114 assists, but Wayne had 7 seasons better than that, and another season with 114 as well. So Mario is tied for 8th! 199 points puts him 5th, as Wayne broke 200 four times (and had 196, which wasn't far back of Mario either). Yes Mario's numbers would have been improved with a better supporting cast, but you seem to be thinking Wayne's numbers were a result of his cast, not the other way around.

Gretzky was often 100 points ahead of anyone else on his team. No one will ever convice me that people like Messier, Anderson, or Kurri had more to do with Wayne's success than he did with theirs. Mario, on the other hand, played with Jagir, who won 5 scoring titles of his own. Wayne NEVER had a linemate of that caliber. Yes Mario had some amazing seasons without any supporting cast at all - I am not trying to take that away from him. But by the time he started winning cups, he had a team as good as anything the Oilers had ever put on ice, and he still only won half as many cups and didn't break any of Wayne's records. Wayne also set many of these records when the Oilers weren't a good team at all (like when he first broke Espo's record for points in a season... on a team that didn't make the playoffs until the very last day of the season). He did 50 in 39 when the Oilers were battling for a playoff spot. He tied for league scoring his first year in the NHL, when Kurri didn't play, Messier had less than 25 goals, and the Oilers were 16th place overall - out of 21 teams. And he was a kid. Not all his success can be attributed to his teammates. If anything, the opposite is much closer to the truth.

The fact that it isn't Malkin or Ovechkin being considered against Gretzky, but the 'Great Canadian Hope' Crosby, is a bit telling - yes, we are a Canadian site, what do you expect?. That being said, I do rate Crosby a hair above Malkin, but that is really splitting hairs.

Like you said though - Ovechkin isn't really all that close to Gretzky. But have we seen OV's best season yet? Perhaps not, so we wait and see . . .

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

mcmurphy

Posted - 06/14/2009 : 21:27:19 This question is obviously made for Canadians, by Canadians. I can't help but wonder if Cherry came up with this quesiton since the thought of a European being added is obviously unacceptable. Crosby can't be compared to the best ever because he isn't even the best player on his team (Malkin) let alone the best player currently in the league (Ovie). Now that said, Gretzky is better than all of the above!

Now with 50% less BS!

fly4apuckguy

Posted - 06/14/2009 : 11:21:22

quote:Originally posted by Guest7877

Guest 4449

I am not taking anything at all away from Mario, another all time great. But to make a statemenet that if he was healthy and if this and that, come on man. You could make those statements about any player.

Fact remains, Gretzky put up those numbers that he did because of his skills and the players that surrounded him. Yes he was surrounded with HOF'rs but why should that be a knock on him?

Mario put up the numbers he did because of his skills. Could he have had better numbers if he stayed healthy? Likely, but nobody will ever know. Facts are facts and that is what is being compared, why attempt to cloud the facts with "what ifs", when in reality they don't mean a damn thing.

I agree. Whenever someone brings up the Mario comparison, I say the same thing about Lindros (who was not a popular guy, but had amazing talent, no question).

If Lindros had managed a 20 year career and 80 game seasons, where would he be?

Like Mario, we'll never know.

So we go with the facts instead.

Guest7877

Posted - 06/05/2009 : 08:50:01 Guest 4449

I am not taking anything at all away from Mario, another all time great. But to make a statemenet that if he was healthy and if this and that, come on man. You could make those statements about any player.

Fact remains, Gretzky put up those numbers that he did because of his skills and the players that surrounded him. Yes he was surrounded with HOF'rs but why should that be a knock on him?

Mario put up the numbers he did because of his skills. Could he have had better numbers if he stayed healthy? Likely, but nobody will ever know. Facts are facts and that is what is being compared, why attempt to cloud the facts with "what ifs", when in reality they don't mean a damn thing.

Guest9838

Posted - 06/05/2009 : 08:27:22 Going back to Crosby being in the 79 draft... not sure if this angle was covered but I highly doubt in 79 Crosby would have been the same size/strength going into the draft. His conditioning and nutritional regimen would have been vastly different, so much has been learned since then. Would he have been the same player growing up in the 70's? would he have had the same junior stats as gretzky in that era? The flip side of the question could also be argued, what would Wayne look like having grown up in the 90s/00s....

just a thought.

Guest4449

Posted - 06/04/2009 : 17:37:50 Theres realy only one thing to say to everyone, And ill argue this with anybody. I(f not for being in alot of pain for his carrier in the nhl, All hockey compairisons would be about one player and one player only and he is mario lemieux. This man was an overwellming beast on the ice and was for the majority of his entire carreer on his own with what he was able to do. I guarantee you that if it had been mario with edm in the early 80's and was pain and injury free you would have seen numbers put up that would have been so rediculous there would never be another play that would ever have a shot at the records that man would set. Just to ad my other 2 cents, I grew up watching hockey since i was a kid as i was born in 73" And ill tell you what, Wayne was one of the biggest cherry pickin players that has ever played the game of hockey! And he had the future hall of fame players around him to help him with those rediculous numbers he put up! im not tryin to piss anybody off i just wanted to spice up the convo a bit.

Guest9281

Posted - 05/05/2009 : 06:35:12 After having read back through these posts, has anyone considered that "cherry-picker Gretzky" was held back by the two-line pass rule? I haven't ever seen it mentioned, and am curious to see what others think. Watching the playoffs this year(especially when watching the Canucks), it seems that the stretch pass is just another option on the break-out.

Guest8801

Posted - 05/05/2009 : 00:02:49 I agreed with everything you said up until the part where you'd take Crosby over 1984 Gretzky. Yes, Crosby is more complete. But so were a lot of guys. None of them ever scored 215 points in a season. I think completeness is great, but its also a little overrated sometimes. The reason it's a team sport is because different people fill different roles. Gretzky didn't need to be a "complete player" because he was putting up offensive numbers that will never be beaten.

When history looks back on these players, there will be a lot of people written about in the top 25 and top 50 of all time, who will be listed as being "complete players." Gretzky will not be one of these. But on all these lists he will be listed as the greatest offensive player to ever live. Without MAJOR restructuring of the game, 50 years from now his records will still stand (don't forget, most have survived half that long already, and most haven't been challenged).

Just for clarification, when I say his records will stil be standing, I don't mean all 60 records he holds today (or is it 61??) I mostly mean his 50 in 39 games, 163 assists in a season, 215 points in a season, and career assists/points records. I think its conceivable that someone may one day beat his career goals record (I say conceivable, not likely), or even his 92 goals in a season (which is pretty unlikely as well, but at least a couple people have broken 80).

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to bash Crosby. I'm one of those who thought he'd be dominating much more than he has been though. I figured after that 120 point sophmore season he was only going to get better. But last year he had injuries, and this year... who knows. He's a great player, but people need to stop comparing everyone who comes along to Gretzky and his records.

fly4apuckguy

Posted - 04/26/2009 : 22:05:22

quote:Originally posted by shazariahl

Most these posts seem to be a couple years old. I'm wondering if now, after basically 4 seasons of Crosby's career, does anyone really think he's even close to Gretzky's level? By this time Gretzky was really hitting his stride - he's put up 50 in 39 and 92 goals in a season, broken the 200 point mark for the first time in hockey history, and was following up that season with another 196 points. From here he'd go on to break 200 points 3 straight times.

On the other hand, Crosby, who looked fairly comparable at the start of his career when Wayne's numbers were adjusted for scoring, doesn't look even REMOTELY close to Wayne's level now, only two years later. Where Wayne was breaking 200 points and winning scoring races by an unprecedented 70 points, Crosby's 3rd in league scoring. He won't win the Art Ross or the Hart, both of which Wayne would go on to own for an entire decade.

Crosby certainly looked comparable in his first two seasons, but he seems to have fallen DRASTICALLY off the pace now. The only true positive I can say for Crosby is that he did manage to help take his team to a cup finals, which is impressive for such a young captain. Also, he was injured much of last year. But so far he's looked more fragile than Wayne, and isn't putting up anywhere near the points.

I look back at my posts a couple of years ago, and I will say that I was overly optimistic about Crosby's impact in the NHL.

I think he has been hampered by a few things, some his own doing, and some just the game.

For one, he has never consistently had decent linemates. That has hurt (and will continue to hurt) his production. He does have Malkin, but that's limited, and in an 82 game season, you need to have linemates than can score. CVolby Armstrong, Tyler Kennedy, Miro Satan, ascal Dupuis, Mark Recchi...all quality players in their own right, but none of them can carry Kurri's jock.

Another issue - the goaltending is so good right now, it's tough to score a pile of points. Even Malkin, as great a year as he had, scored just over half of what Gretzky got in his best season. Swallow that for a minute, and you realize how different the game is right now.

I still believe this is his era for the taking, but I am not as sure as I once was about just how much he will dominate. I do believe he is going to outscore Ovechkin, career-wise, but without question, he needs to become a more effective shooter than he is right now.

Given the choice of which guy to take with 2 years of perspective? I'd still take Crosby over 1984 Gretzky. I think he is a more complete player.

Don't forget, the kid is still only 21.

Guest0436

Posted - 04/16/2009 : 17:43:53

quote:Anyone who would say Crosby never watched Gretzky play.

You are DEAD WRONG!I watch Crosby all the time as oppossed to rarity I watched (ugh) Gretsky.

shazariahl

Posted - 04/06/2009 : 08:51:05 Most these posts seem to be a couple years old. I'm wondering if now, after basically 4 seasons of Crosby's career, does anyone really think he's even close to Gretzky's level? By this time Gretzky was really hitting his stride - he's put up 50 in 39 and 92 goals in a season, broken the 200 point mark for the first time in hockey history, and was following up that season with another 196 points. From here he'd go on to break 200 points 3 straight times.

On the other hand, Crosby, who looked fairly comparable at the start of his career when Wayne's numbers were adjusted for scoring, doesn't look even REMOTELY close to Wayne's level now, only two years later. Where Wayne was breaking 200 points and winning scoring races by an unprecedented 70 points, Crosby's 3rd in league scoring. He won't win the Art Ross or the Hart, both of which Wayne would go on to own for an entire decade.

Crosby certainly looked comparable in his first two seasons, but he seems to have fallen DRASTICALLY off the pace now. The only true positive I can say for Crosby is that he did manage to help take his team to a cup finals, which is impressive for such a young captain. Also, he was injured much of last year. But so far he's looked more fragile than Wayne, and isn't putting up anywhere near the points.

Guest8801

Posted - 04/01/2009 : 02:50:01 Sorry to post 2x in a row, but I actually found some numbers showing Wayne's dominance during his prime.

As you can see, none of those seasons are even close. My complaint about Crosby is that he isn't even dominating the league in scoring right now; no matter how you adjust these numbers for era or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that Gretzky buried his competition during his prime, and only 4 years into his career Crosby may not even be the best player in the league.

Crosby is a great talent, it's true. But 20 years from now Gretzky will still hold most or even all of his 60 records. Crosby will go down in history as being another Hull, LaFleur, Bossy, Jagir, or Bure - a great player, but no match for the Great One.

Guest8801

Posted - 04/01/2009 : 02:30:19 Well, the adjusted stats have already been listed, and Wayne's numbers, even adjusted for era, are staggering. Crosby would need to step up his game significantly just to try and keep pace, and he'd need to maintain that for the next 10 or 12 years. It just doesn't look like it's gonna happen.

Worse yet, I'm starting to wonder if Crosby even belongs in this discussion or not. With Ovechkin and Malkin both competing with(and even beating!) Crosby in points and scoring, I'm no longer even convinced that Sid the Kid is the best player in the league right now, let alone worthy of consideration against the Great One. Gretzky won scoring races by 50-60% margins (even a record 69% one year! That is simply unfathomable). He had 3 seasons with more assists than anyone else had points. Think about that - he would have won 3 scoring titles without even scoring! Crosby isn't even the leading scorer now, only 4 years into his career. Worse yet, Malkin is! That would have been like Francis beating Lemieux or Messier beating Gretzky.

Don't get me wrong - Crosby is very talented. And I am probably quite biased - I grew up in my early teens watching Gretzky and the Oilers win cups. I lived in Edmonton, saw their games on TV every night, saw several live, and was able to witness one of hockey's greatest teams in their height of glory. I haven't really had that same opportunity to watch Crosby to that same degree. But from what I've seen the last couple seasons, it doesn't look like he's necessarily even going to dominate the current NHL. And if he can't do that, he's not going to be remembered as being better than Gretzky.

LeafsFan4Life

Posted - 11/13/2007 : 11:37:39 I would have to say the great one would be my pick just because he was just that great, I believe its going to be a long long time before anyone touches his records, and I think there has never been a more modest, gentlemanly player off the ice as well. based upon that i would say the great one 100%. As for the kid Crosby, hes not my favorite player but you have to respect his passion for the game, and not being on the greatest team in the league he still produces. But i guess its like comparing apples and oranges, there is no real comparison between the two

Long Live Hockey

fly4apuckguy

Posted - 10/20/2007 : 17:17:36

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

We all know that Crosby has the talent, but does he have the ability to succeed??

I believe he does. When you remove all the stuff beyond the control of the player - the era, the linemates, the team, the coach, the systems...even the points and the so-called whininess of either or both....what you are left with is the factor that I think stands above all else.

A love of the game beyond what is normal, creating a burning desire to succeed.

It's what separates the gods from the legends. I truly believe it is in this kid. I've seen a lot of hopefuls over the years (Daigle, Thornton, Lecavalier - each touted as the next great thing). Some were/are great players, but none have the same level of passion for excellence that Gretz and Sid (I believe) have.

Beans15

Posted - 10/20/2007 : 14:52:33 Willus, that is a good point. It's very much the same as my comparison in another post between Ovechkin and Bure after two years.

Gretzky vs. Crosby after their first two years on paper are disgustingly close when you take into account the early 80's firewagon hockey against todays NHL.

That being said, I think that Gretzky is still my pick. Reason being, his way of thinking through the game. I still think Crosby has some things to improve on and learn and experience. He will do that, but I still think that Gretzky was further along. However, Gretzky was also older and more experienced by his 3rd NHL year. He had 4 pro seasons under his belt and he was already 21 or 22.

Crosby will more than likely get to where he should be uttered in the same breath as Gretzky, but that story will be told over the next 3-4 seasons specifically. We all know that Crosby has the talent, but does he have the ability to succeed??

That is the litmus test to me now.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

fly4apuckguy

Posted - 10/20/2007 : 14:33:49 It's funny how we always want to compare players. I'm guilty of it as much as anyone.

One of my recent favourites was the Crosby/Ovechkin comparison during their rookie season (when, as we know, Ovechkin won the Calder and lit the league on fire). Of course, I'm pro-Crosby, but my point was never that Ovechkin isn't an incredible talent, I always argued that people were comparing a then 20-year-old to an 18-year-old. I always said that they should be compared after they have both had a few years in the league, and then it would be a better comparison. I don't think there are many people out there still saying Ovechkin is a better prospect than Crosby.

I guess the same holds true for the Crosby/Gretzky comparisons. Good points, willus.

willus3

Posted - 10/20/2007 : 13:39:50 I'm with Fly here. I don't see any reason at all why Crosby wouldn't hit 200 point seasons given the same era and team Gretzky had.

Beans you have mentioned a few times now that until Crosby can lead or carry a team like Gretzky did you won't put him in the same category. I believe you said the 91 season for an example. Gretzky had 12 seasons of experience by then. Gretzky also did not win a cup his first two years with Edmonton. It took 4 or 5 years.I understand where you're coming from though. People are saying he's as good as Gretzky after two years and you're saying not yet because we haven't seen enough. Agreed.However comparing their first two seasons I don't think it unreasonable at all to say Crosby is as good through to the same point in their respective careers.

In truth, through all of this debate, and GM on earth would be happy to take either one of these guys, at any time.

Interestingly enough, both have had very weird paths to the NHL. First Gretz, who played in the WHA, was never drafted by an NHL team. He was signed as a 17 year old by the Indiana Pacers, because the WHA had no real rules about age like the NHL did. Of course, Sid Crosby ended up with the Pens only because they were lucky enough to have their ping-pong ball picked last. He could just as easily have been with Anaheim (it was that close - they already won the Cup last year - how good would they have been with Sid?).I was personally hoping the Habs would have gotten Crosby. I'm not really even a Habs fan, I just think the NHL needs someone on that team to carry the torch, so to speak.

andyhack

Posted - 10/20/2007 : 07:49:30 Fair enough, Flyguy. Fair enough. I guess you are making the assumption though that when Sid gets a better team and gets closer to the prize, he has what it takes to lead the team to glory a la Gretzky, Messier, Trottier and not fold like one of your many cheap three dollar suits a la Joe Thornton (lets face it, Big Joe has been a bit of a disappointment overall playoff-wise) and, to borrow a superstar from another sport, Alex Rodriguez.

I think this is very probably a good assumption on your part, but if I am a general manager in '79 and have some inside information from Gazoo (of Flintstones fame) that Gretzky is gonna get a bunch of 200 points seasons in the mid-80s and come through very very nicely in playoff times, but no inside info from Gazoo on Sid's future, and therefore have to weigh a "based on my inside info from Gazoo definitely bring home the glory" Gretzky vs. a "based on my hockey knowledge and everything this guy is showing, very probably bring home the glory" Crosby, I'd go with Gretzky. And if Crosby ends up surpassing Gretzky and being a dominant playoff performer, well, I'd send Steve Downie and Jesse Boulerice over to Gazoo's home to "take him out".

Let's put Kurri in Ryan Malone's position, and Tikkanen in Recchi's. Switch out Gonchar (blech) for Coffey, and Ryan Whitney for Kevin Lowe.

That's just a regular line, based on who Crosby played with tonight against the 'Canes. Let's not even get into the power play where you could switch out Lowe for Anderson and Tikkanen for Messier.

Crosby had two points tonight. With the Oiler line-up, he could have, and probably would have had two more at least. He broke to the net on several ocassions with no support because Malone is slow and Recchi (God love him) is done like dinner.

Crosby had an average game on an avergae line and got two points. What would he be doing in an offensive time, on an elite offensive line, with the highest scoring team in history?

I know this is pure conjecture, but it's fun to think of - I bet he gets well over 200 points on that team.

With these Pens, he is on such a high level of play, that his linemates can't keep up. I think Kurri, Mess and Anderson would have provided better support for him like they did with Gretz. Crosby makes his current team better (which is why they win a few games here and there), but they are more like the 1984 Penguins than the 1984 Oilers. Gretzky started off on a mediocre team, too, though. We'll see where they are in a couple of years and re-evaluate.

andyhack

Posted - 10/19/2007 : 20:29:55

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

I will agree that Crosby belongs in Gretzky's class one day, but it's not today.

That's the thing that's tricky about this hypothetical. We are being asked to go back in time and, in a way, essentially try to forget what Gretzky did. If we remember it, and analyze this question based on the standard that Gretzky leapt to in the years following his first two years (where there really was a significant increase, especially after his third year), well, it's just kind of hard to say based on only two years worth of Sid, that he could have reached that Gretzdiculous level of offensive production in the 80s. I certainly can understand Flyguy's optimism for Sid's future, and very much agree with the "you have to adjust today's numbers to the 80s" reasoning, but still, I'm not sure I can bring myself to be optimistic enough that he would be a shoe-in to get 200 points plus on the 80s Oilers, let alone 250 (I assume you meant Gretzky-less Oilers too, right Flyguy?). At this point, I can see 150 to 180 points on those '80 Oilers teams though, which is very very good of course, and given some of the other things Crosby brings to the table, I certainly wouldn't think it ludicrous to consider taking Crosby even with just what we know now. But for me, unless I somehow eliminate what I KNOW Gretzky did in fact do from my mind and pretend I am comparing them as of 1979 as two young guys with limited experience, it's hard to choose Sid over Wayne at this point.

Guest0942

Posted - 10/19/2007 : 20:02:50

quote:Originally posted by nashvillepreds

quote: Secondly, how many points would Iginla get playing with a 27 year old Gretzky in today's NHL? More than a 100 points!

Hate to break it to you but iginla is already getting aroung 100 p-oints a season

GO PREDATORS GO

Yes, but this only strengthens my point.

Beans15

Posted - 10/19/2007 : 19:54:04 Fly, I agree that Crosby today is a better version than 91 Lafontaine, but I don't think he's as good as 91 Gretzky.

78 games, 41 goals, 122 assist, 163 points, +30. 15 Points in 12 playoff games. THe Kings that year were basically Gretzky, Robataille, and Sandstrom with an aging Larry Robinson and a (in my mind) weak goalie in Hrudy. That team went 46-24-10 and played 12 playoff games.

Until Crosby can do what Gretzky did with LA he's just not in the same class. I compare the Kings in the early 90's to today's Pens. A superstar, a couple of above average players, and the rest riding coat tails. The difference is Gretzky nearly won the Cup with a similar type of team.

I think Crosby will get there, but it hasn't happened yet. I will agree that Crosby belongs in Gretzky's class one day, but it's not today.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

fly4apuckguy

Posted - 10/19/2007 : 18:19:20 I totally agree that if Iggy was playing on a line with a 27 year old Gretzky he would probably get 150 points too. Maybe that was a bad example. Better yet, Pat Lafontaine, a very good NHLer, scored 148 points in 1991. I'm guessing he would be hard-pressed to get 100 in the NHL today. Crosby right now is a much faster, smarter, skilled version of 1991 Pat Lafontaine.

That's probably a better comparison.

nashvillepreds

Posted - 10/19/2007 : 18:12:39

quote: Secondly, how many points would Iginla get playing with a 27 year old Gretzky in today's NHL? More than a 100 points!

Hate to break it to you but iginla is already getting aroung 100 p-oints a season

GO PREDATORS GO

Guest0942

Posted - 10/19/2007 : 17:28:50

quote:Originally posted by fly4apuckguy

Bernie Nichols scored 70 goals and 80 assists one year. That's 150 points. Jarome Iginla has never cracked 100 points. That speaks volumes about the way the game is played now vs then.

Yes, but who was Nichols playing with when he got that 70 goals and 150 points? How many points did he get the very next year without playing with Gretzky? Secondly, how many points would Iginla get playing with a 27 year old Gretzky in today's NHL? More than a 100 points!

nashvillepreds

Posted - 10/19/2007 : 13:19:20 I've seen gretzky play a lot and i have to say that he was by far the best player who ever played. The only reason why some people might pick Crosby is because he looks a bit more athletic than Gretzky did when he first entered the league

GO PREDATORS GO

Guest2554

Posted - 10/19/2007 : 07:07:27 Post-Lock Out NHL Is Crosby's NHL. A hook free league where he can weave in and out of players.

Gretzky took the scoring title with eaze while fighting through a much scarier tougher League.

Crosby would have to do some adapting back in the 80's.

I'd go with gretzky

But don't get me wrong. I have a Man-Crush on Crosby.

fly4apuckguy

Posted - 10/18/2007 : 22:51:06 Wayne Gretzky is my childhood idol. I spent many a night thinking about a special pass he made, a goal he scored, or an after-game quote that I could memorize and make my own. I had Gretzky posters, lunch kits, hockey cards, puzzles...you name it.

And I'd take Crosby. On the 1984 Oilers, I think he'd get 250 points. He brings it every single shift, with more speed than Gretz, better moves than Gretz, and maybe even more determination than Gretz. I give Gretz the slight edge in hockey sense and shot (not that Gretz had a super-hard or accurate shot, but moreso than Sid at this point). To those who question Sid's leadership...read Bruce Hood's book. He said Gretzky was the whiniest player that ever lived, and he was an NHL ref!

Look at my avitar. I'm no Gretzky basher. I just think that If you took 1979 Gretzky and put him up against Sid now, Sid wins. The things stopping Sid from breaking Gretzky's records are weaker teammates and better defensive systems and goalies. You can't dismiss these facts about the way the game has changed - they are relevant.

Bernie Nichols scored 70 goals and 80 assists one year. That's 150 points. Jarome Iginla has never cracked 100 points. That speaks volumes about the way the game is played now vs then.

Note - Gretzky didn't get hit often because he was smart and elusive, not because he was a chicken.

Beans15

Posted - 09/15/2007 : 02:43:31 Staying in the play and getting hit is definately something that Crosby does. So did all of the great offensive players. What I am talking about it sliding across the ice to block a shot. Crosby does that?? No, he doesn't.

And if you like that style of hockey, I am shocked that you don't talk more about Thorton, Heatley, Lecavalier or Iginla. All play a more aggressive style than Crosby and are very gifted offensively. Difference is, in my opinion, Crosby spend more time with his butt on the ice than these other players. He still, last year anyway, tried to draw that penalty rather than fight through like the other players I mentioned. Don't get me wrong, I know that Crosby gets worked over by ever team he plays, but so do these other guys. He will learn that, but until then, he will have that stigma as a diver rather than an aggressive hard nosed player.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

Guest1986

Posted - 09/15/2007 : 00:05:56 Gretzky didn't often take a hit to make a play because he didn't have to. He made the plays in any case. Let's not chastise Gretzky for outsmarting other players. If he were stupid enough to put himself in a postition to get hit in order to make a play, his name wouldn't be Wayne Gretzky.

willus3

Posted - 09/14/2007 : 18:23:21

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Willus comparing old time hockey to today is like comparing the Buggatti to a Civic. There is no comparison. A kid like Crosby was never coached to block shots or drive head first into his corner for the puck. In today's NHL, it is stupid for an elite offensive player to play that style of hockey. Crosby does not have to, and if he chooses to, his coach should be cracking him up side the head. He get paid to put points on the board.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

Crosby is sacrificing his body all the time. Takes hits all the time. Constantly taking risks. Probably why I like him so much.He gets paid to play hockey. He gets paid to win.

"You are not your desktop wallpaper"

Beans15

Posted - 09/14/2007 : 16:46:29 Willus comparing old time hockey to today is like comparing the Buggatti to a Civic. There is no comparison. A kid like Crosby was never coached to block shots or drive head first into his corner for the puck. In today's NHL, it is stupid for an elite offensive player to play that style of hockey. Crosby does not have to, and if he chooses to, his coach should be cracking him up side the head. He get paid to put points on the board.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.